Getty to allow embedding for 'non-commercial use' of images

Getty Images has taken a major step towards addressing unauthorized image use by allowing low-resolution (~0.17MP - and if that's hard to visualize check out the picture in this story) embedding of images for no charge, with no watermark, on non-commercial 'blogs and social media'.

Admitting that combatting unauthorized image use by the world's Internet users is impractical, Getty is pitching the new embedding service, which is available for more than 35 million photographs as a legal alternative to image theft.

Speaking to the British Journal of Photography, Craig Peters (SVP Business Development, Content and Marketing) says that Getty needs to adopt to a reality where 'everybody today is a publisher thanks to social media and self-publishing platforms'.

Embedding (which excludes certain restricted collections such as Getty's Premium Archive, Contour and Reportage) offers in Peters' words 'a legal method' to use copyright images. Embedding is strictly limited to non-commercial image use, and in the words of its terms and conditions, Getty reserves the right to 'place advertisements in the Embedded Viewer or otherwise monetize its use without any compensation to [the embedder of the image]'.

It is certainly true that unauthorized image use is widespread, and on the face of it, offering watermark-free embedding to online publishers engaged in non-commercial content creation seems fairly innocuous.

However, as for that distinction between commercial and non-commercial use, Craig Peters' comments to the BJP (echoed in an FAQ made available to Getty contributors) might not offer much comfort to its photographers...

'the fact [...] that a website is generating revenue would not limit the use of the embed. What would limit that use is if they used our imagery to promote a service, a product or their business.'

Which means that as editor of dpreview.com - an advertising-supported website - I can embed the image at the top of this news story free of charge, because I'm not using it to promote a service, product or my business.

But as the guy who took the picture, I won't see a penny.

UPDATE: PetaPixel is reporting that (for now at least) the credit line of embedded images can be easily deleted with some simple HTML trickery.

I do make a meaningful income from stock sales. I have quit all stock agencies and just sell through my Photodeck site. Alamy Getty iStock and all the others can stick their contracts, scams and all their other ripoff BS ideas where the Sun don't shine.Honestly guys you keep feeding them for free the more they come back with their hard luck stories wanting more cheaper. Just don't play with them. it's your ball take it home.

Public domain photographs will keep steadily increasing in quality as people eventually figure out how to compose better photographs, work with light, balance, and post process. Just use those if you want to avoid a possible video advertisement running unexpectedly one day on your website.

Getty intends to share the ad revenue with those whose images get embedded. They have a similar program for commercial users called Connect. Initially with the Connect program, Getty rounded down figures while placing the threshold for renumeration at 1 cent, which required thousands of views to achieve. Moreover they made the threshold specific to an image not collective for all images of a photgrapher. It doesn't take a genius to fgure out what the outcome was. Getty was always collecting revenue on the collective use of all images across their library while not being obligated to pay the indiovidual photgraphers due to the rounding down, per image and threshold requirements. The scheme was eventually amended to be more fair to the photgrapher; however even those with sizeable portfolios are only reporting revenue in the pennies per month range from Connect.

Getty are just bullies, and I don't trust anything they do. In many cases they claim copyright of images (e.g. where the photographer is unknown), but cannot prove it. I ll never work with them ever again.

Further to my last comment. After further reading into this matter, I am now not that much concerned about the users of the images, but I am now VERY concerned that Getty themselves, with this new arrangement, have taken the place of the general public as the abuser of photographers.

My first reaction to this news was that Getty have thrown in the towel, and along with the U.K. government's intention to legalise and institutionalise copyright theft of photographers' work, this news is the beginning of the end. It is sending the signal that it is open season on photographers' work.

However, reading the remarks, just before mine, of Roland Karlsson it may not be so bad. Mr Karlssson appears to be displeased with what Getty are doing. In my view Getty are doing the right thing; if they are to give folks access to content WITHOUT charging them a fee, they have to instill in the users of these images the notion that the images do have some value and that accessing Getty's library without payment must come with some strings attached. If Getty did it any other way, the way many of the iPhone/Facebook generation would like it done, that is totally unhindered access, it would be sending the wrong signals.

You install a viewer on your web page. This viewer can show the Getty small size image. But it also can show ads instead. And clicking the viewer window and you come to Getty. Getty gets links to itself that gets them higher up on search engines. And Getty get extra ads. And they even managed to get an article about it on DPReview and made me and several here write about it.

We have been doing embeds for about a year now, having Getty come in does excite us. Innovation in this space is definitely necessary - http://imgembed.com/

Most importantly we use flattened jpgs to facilitate responsive designs and current CMS auto-generated thumbnails.

We aim to be a ethical-use marketplace, so our ethos might differ slightly from corporate Getty. Photographers strictly retain their rights and we only act as a facilitator. Free use is limited to 10,000 impressions but is allowable for commercial use. Our belief is that beyond 10k impressions, you are probably making enough that the photographer should be fairly compensated. While we might suggest image pricing, that is fully up to the image rights owners, giving them full control.

Does anybody know - can these images only be embedded in a website, or can they be used in video? I wanted to use a few images I found online "Ken Burns" style in non-commercial teaching videos I was making last year and came up hard against copyright.

What amazes me is that any photographer with half of a brain would agree to Getty's terms and conditions. Essentially, the photographers assume all of the risk and cost of creating the images. Then Getty pays a fee that comes nowhere close to covering those costs, much less the photographer's time. Getty is doing very well under its business model while its content creators earn very little.

When stock licensing started out photographers saw it as a way to earn more income by licensing images that were outtakes from paid gigs. Then some photographers began producing images on "spec" in the hope that they would recoup their investment. The downside of stock photography is that clients can license images at less cost than assigning someone to create the photos. It didn't take long for companies to switch from assignments to sourcing images from stock agencies and photographers.

Now that images have been commodified and fees are so low stock is lose-win business model. Guess who wins!

you can make money in stock. I would not do it with getty. but it can be lucrative if you know the industry and you know how to make images with very little cost. if you produce a lot of marketable stock quickly at low costs of production it can make a lot of money

Agreed. And do a google search for the Dreamstime stock agency. They have millions of images that a commercial buyer can use ... some for free OR others for 23cents per image per use. The photographer gets 11 cents per use, I suppose. (The Toronto Star newspaper, with a daily circulation of 500,000, uses Dreamstime stock constantly and I assume other major stock photo buyers do as well.) Anyone who sends images to Dreamstime must be crazy. If your photos sell 100 times per month, ** and I doubt that's possible** that's $11 per month for all the work required to get it.

By doing this Getty has essentially given up protecting its photographers from unauthorized use of their images in a narrow set of circumstances. At the same time Getty is making it possible to monetize unauthorized use and it appears that its photographers won't get a cut of the pie.

As far as the difference between "commercial" and "non-commerical" use goes, here is my definition of a commercial website: If the website generates income in any form it is commercial, period. Be it advertisements or simply promoting a service, the website is generating income for the website's owner. If the website owner makes money and my images are used on the website, then I am going to license my images for a fee, period.

That's probably Getty's definition too, which will likely result in them harvesting addresses using their player software and sending extortion letters to those people who thought they were using the images properly. ("For just $300 per image, we won't sure you for $10,000 and image for violation our TOS - such a bargain!")

So for non-commercial images is it best for us "enthusiasts" to watermark our photos then? I know that if someone wants a photo "bad" enough they will still steal it and try and remove the watermark. But maybe it's a small deterrent, just like having security company stickers on the doors and windows of your home or business. You hope you thief will just move on to a simpler target.

Edit: I'm talking about uploading of images to other sites, not Getty.

Since Getty will be monetizing these embedded images through links to advertisers and will be able to track both the number of views and the number of click-throughs each one gets, it should be easy to work out a compensation rate for the photographer of the image. In fact, I can't find anywhere Getty says it won't be compensating their photographers for this usage. Do they?

Look, the way it works is that Getty will make a fortune monetizing it and creators will get a pittance.

For example, check out the music industry and Spotify. Look at the current valuation of Spotify, and the amount it pays content creators-even huge creators like David Byrne who get one or two hundred dollars at the end of the year. (Very different than iTunes income, which is selling and not providing content ephemerally...) Byrne has just started a movement to educate the public and content creators about how this sort of economic model (doesn't) work. Getty will walk off with all of the monetization.

Wonderful. So they use their wast stock and seed the images for free, earn form hits and advertising and photographer gets nothing cause his work is represented in "to small" format so it is worth nothing, they say. Other than the fact it is being used in the most massive media in the world who works with images small as this...

Great service. I will be sure to upload all the work there and advise other to do so to.

OK, you're right. Art is absolute and not subjective at all. So in what gallery can I see some of your fine art? I assume since you're in line with the arbiters of taste, you must be a wildly successful artist.

So the photographer takes a picture. Getty gives it away for free for non-commercial use and earns money from it through ads. Photographer gets nothing.

Doesn't seem like a good incentive for photographers. Why would one want to give their work away, so that some corporation can profit off it?

But the general idea of making photos available for free and monetizing them is an interesting one, especially today, when 'theft' of images is rampant. But without photographers getting their fair share, it just looks sleazy.

It kinda seems to me that photographers are taken for granted more and more. How often do you hear stories about some corpo wanting to use your work without compensation? Or offering a non-paid 'job' and calling that an opportunity?

Except most people upload to YouTube with no expectation of earning money. People expect Getty to act as their agent and distributor to sell their files, not give them away. Also people can earn a decent amount through advertising if lots of people watch their videos on YouTube. Getty can't even figure out how to make money for themselves from this venture, let alone the contributor, other than a nebulous claim of maybe including advertising at some stage in the future, of which the contributor will maybe get tiny percentages of percentages of pennies.

no, it would not. photographers will never make any money from this kind of advertising its two small a pie.. Photographers sent these images two getty with the expectation they be licensed. A pie that should have been big enough for everyone. that said there has been ample reasons for years not to trust getty to market your stock

Typically Getty to give up on the things it doesn't profit from. They take as much and sometimes more than 70% of a photo sale, giving the photographer 30% or less and then renege on their commitment to handle the business end of licensing photography by letting images be used for no charge. With Getty it's always what's best for Getty. Ever since joining Getty, by way of one of their many agency buyouts, Getty has never shown any interest in the people who provide them content. Even Corbis gives their contributors an editor to contact. Not Getty. Chalk this new policy up to another way for them to make money by not spending any to fight piracy. Getty profits and once again photographers don't. Like I said, typical Getty.

How does including an image in a page which earns money through advertising not class as commercial use? By using it in a page you're promoting your business because your business revolves around posting pages that have advertising on them.

Aside from that, who in their right mind would embed an image directly in an advertisement, especially if Getty includes their own advertising in it.

Just posting an image (or video, text, music clip etc.) on a website that earns money in some way (through advertising or other means), does not mean that the content in question has been used commercially. If the content is used directly to promote sales, for example by being included in an advert, then it has been used commercially.So whether the site is commercial or not, and whether the content is used commercially, are two different questions. DPR is a commercial site, but the image embedded by Barney isn't used commercially to promote anything.

To my mind, if a site engaged in commercial activity has images on their site to "pretty up" their site and make it more attractive, then those images are being used for commercial purposes as far as I am concerned. The exception would be using an image when commenting on a news item and even then I would regard that as sailing close to the wind in some cases.

@ John - the 'rich' comment was a (dark, very dark) joke. I was a contributing photographer for Getty, shooting music for about 6-ish years in the UK. In almost all cases a photo pass was obtained via the agency, and I took a cut of the royalties earned when the images sold. I continue to make a vanishingly small amount of money from my archive.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.